VIOLATION OF GRICES COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE

IN MONTY PYTHONS FLYING CIRCUS COMEDY SERIES

A Research Proposal

By:
BAYU JAKA MAGISTRA

180120130006

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMME - FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

UNIVERSITAS PADJADJARAN
2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ i

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Rationale .....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Formulations of the Study ...........................................................................................3
1.3 Objectives of the Study ...............................................................................................4
1.4 Theoretical Outline ......................................................................................................4
1.5 Methods ......................................................................................................................4
1.6 Data Source .................................................................................................................5
1.7 Weight and Relevance .................................................................................................5

Chapter II THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 6

2.1 Cooperative Principle ..................................................................................................6
2.2 Humor Strategies by Violation of Cooperative Principle .............................................8
2.2.1 The Maxim of Quantity and Humor...................................................................9
2.2.2 The Maxim of Quality and Humor ...................................................................11
2.2.3 The Maxim of Relation and Humor .................................................................12
2.2.4 The Maxim of Manner and Humor ..................................................................13

DATA EXAMPLES ........................................................................................................... 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 21

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1

Rationale
Alwasilah (2002) states that research problems emerge because of three or more

factors i.e. experience, concepts and previous findings. These three factors interact
each other generating research problems which will be solved by the process of
research. Thus, the interaction is graphically depicted as follows.

The writer, however, firstly encountered the problems for this research because
of the experience factor which is explained as follows. Several years ago, the writer
found a blog post about a comedy troupe named Monty Python with its famous
comedy series entitled Monty Pythons Flying Circus. What is interesting about
this group, the blog post said, was that all of its members were graduates of Oxford
and Cambridge universities; except Terry Gilliam who was graduated from

Occidental College. Moreover, their comedy style was said to be unique, which was
tagged surrealist comedy, utilizing innovative stream-of-consciousness approach.
Interested and felt curious about it, the writer searched for some sketches of Monty
Pythons Flying Circus on YouTube, and was amazed by the unique eccentricity of
the sketches. What interested the writer mostly about the sketches was the language
play they used like the following excerpt.

First Man
Registrar
First Man
Registrar

:
:
:
:

Er, excuse me, I want to get married.

I'm afraid I'm already married, sir.
Er, no, no. I just want to get married.
I could get a divorce, I suppose, but it'll be a bit of a
wrench.

In the above dialog, the first mans intention was to ask the registrar to bring
about his marital union according to the laws, but the registrar misinterprets the first
mans statement; assuming that he wants to make him his spouse. This kind of
language play happened quite often in the Monty Pythons Flying Circus sketches,
and made the series very funny.
The language plays that the series used involve not only the meaning of
sentences, but also other factors like pre-existing knowledge and intentions, which is
exemplified by the above excerpt. Therefore, the phenomenon is dealt by the study of
pragmatics, specifically cooperative principle developed by Paul Grice (Grice, 1991).
Grice states that communication is a process that requires interlocutors to be
cooperative with each other, and to achieve this cooperation there are four rules or

maxims (i.e. relation, quality, quantity, and manner) that speakers have to follow in
order to make a conversation go on effectively. However, several researchers state
that in order to arouse audiences laughter, high percentage of humorous
conversations is established by the purposeful violation of one or more of the maxims
of cooperative principle (Attardo, 1994).
The relationship between violation of maxims and humorous effect can be
exemplified by a research done by Wu & Chen (2010) which analyzes the humor
strategies found in the American sitcom Friends based on Grices cooperative
principle. They found out that in the sitcom, specifically in the last season, the
characters of the show use different kinds of humor strategies that violated the
cooperative principle to amuse the audience. Among all the humor strategies, irony,
in which maxim of quality was violated, was the most frequently used.
From the interaction among experience, concept and previous findings above,
the writer assumes that similar approach can be applied to the Monty Pythons
Flying Circus comedy series. Thus, the writer will analyze the comedy strategies of
the series based on Paul Grices cooperative principle.

1.2

Formulations of the Study

Based on the aforementioned rationale, the formulations of this research are

explained as follows.

1. What maxims that are violated in order to create humorous effect in the
Monty Pythons flying circus comedy series?
2.

1.3

What maxim that is mostly violated in the series?

Objectives of the Study

Based on the above formulations, the objectives of this study is to investigate

the maxims that are violated in the Monty pythons flying circus, and the one that is
mostly violated.

1.4

Theoretical Outline
The main theory of this research is cooperative principle and its four

conversational maxims developed by Paul Grice (Grice, 1991). However, the writer
will also base this research on Raskin (2011) and Attardo (1994) who basically state
that humor violate and also follow cooperative principle.

1.5

Methods
This research will use descriptive and qualitative methods. According to

Travers, descriptive method is aimed to describe the nature of a situation as it

exists at the time of the study and to explore the causes of particular phenomena.
Furthermore, this method determines and reports the way things are. Just as

historical research has no control over what was, descriptive research has no control
over what is, and it can only measure what already exists (Sevilla et al, 2007)
However, qualitative method will be used as well because this research will
involve the process of coding and categorization in analyzing the data. Alwasilah
(Alwasilah, 2002) states that generally there are three steps in analyzing the data in
qualitative research i.e. coding, categorization & developing a theory. Remembering
that this research only reports the types of Indonesian word formations in borrowing
English internet & computer terms descriptively, the last step is omitted.

1.6

Data Source
The data for this research will be sourced from two volume book entitled The

Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus; All the Words (Chapman et al., 1989)
which contain complete scripts from the four Monty Pythons Flying Circus series.

1.7

Weight and Relevance

This research will more or less enrich the humor study, specifically humor

study which is based on pragmatics.

CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1

Cooperative Principle
Paul Grice proposes that in ordinary conversation, speakers and hearers share a

cooperative principle (CP) which is to make your conversation contribution such as

is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of
the talk exchange in which you are engaged (Grice, 1991). This cooperative
principle is based on the assumption that language users tacitly agree to cooperate by
making their contributions to the talk as is required by the current stage of the talk or
the direction into which it develops. CP involves four maxims i.e. quantity, quality,
relation, and manner which are detailed as follows.

a.

Maxim of Quantity
This maxim requires speakers to say adequately, meaning neither too
much nor too less. Supposing there is a conversation like the following.
A
B

: Bill and Martha are leaving tomorrow.

: Ill miss Martha.

(Attardo, 1994, p. 23)

In this example, B flouts the maxim of quantity (as his response only
attends to part of the topic initiated by A). As a result, the deliberate
omission can be said to imply that perhaps he is not so fond of Bill.

b.

Maxim of Quality
It requires speakers to be appropriately truthful. Suppose the conversation
goes like the following.
Tom : I might win the lottery
Jean : Yes, and pigs might fly.
(Attardo, 1994, p. 24)
Jean is flouting the maxim of quality because the conversation implies
that Tom's chances of winning the lottery are about the same as pigs
flying.

c.

Maxim of Relevance
It

means that speakers should make their utterances relevant. Supposing

there is a conversation like the following.

Jim : Wheres the roast beef?
Mary : The dog looks happy.
(Attardo, 1994, p. 26)

What Mary says is relevant to the question. She should have answered the
question by saying the location of where the roast beef is.

d.

Maxim of Manner
This type of maxim can be interpreted as be concise, to the point, etc.
Supposing there is a conversation like the following.
A
B

: Lets get the kids something.

: OK but not I-C-E C-R-E-A-M [spelling it out].
(Attardo, 1993, p. 357)

In the above conversation, B utterly fails to cooperatively follow the

maxim of clarity and conciseness.

2.2

Humor Strategies by Violation of Cooperative Principle

Humor is widely known as something that causes laugher or arouses peoples

interests by funny words, gestures and facial expressions. Grices CP is a core theory
that is used to analyze and control peoples conversation. Weve followed Grices
principle since we learn to speak, and weve been guided by these maxims all the
time. However, in peoples daily conversation, Grices maxims are not always
obeyed. It seems when the maxims are violated, the speakers apparently wish to end
the conversation, or wish to avoid the conversation. Otherwise, they may suppose to

break some of the maxims consciously, and expect the listener to understand that the
violation is occurring and why it happens.
Yet under some circumstances, the violation of cooperative principle and
accompanied four maxims isnt only intent to terminate the conversation, but also
brings comedy effect sometimes. That is to say if humor happens in conversation, it is
often in relation to the violation of the conversational cooperative principle from
some point of view. Humor actually can be derived from the deliberate flouted
maxims. Therefore, deliberate violation of CP is the linguistic basis of humor.

2.2.1 The Maxim of Quantity and Humor

It means that people do not make contribution more informative than required.
When speakers break the quantity maxim consciously, and do not provide whats
addressees required or give much more than needed, humor breaks out consequently.
There are two examples of humor strategies that violate this maxim which are
explained as follows.

1.

The Lack of Required Information Makes Humor

Suppose there is a conversation that goes like this:
An old lady was strolling through the park when she saw Jamie with a
dog. Does your dog bite? she asked. No. side Jamie. When the old
lady tried to pet the dog, it almost bit her finger off. I thought you said
your dog doesn't bite! screamed the old lady with blood dripping from
her hand. Thats right, answered Jamie, My dog doesnt bite, but
thats not my dog. (Dong, 1992, p. 2)

10

In this humor, the old lady sees Jamie with a dog together, then raises an
question naturally, Does your dog bite? trying to get more information
about the dog. But Jamie gives the information a little bit less than
expected, No. Accordingly, it causes the old lady to suppose that dog is
good-tempered, and then she rests easy and pets the dog; however, the
dog almost bites her finger broken. Of course, the old lady screams,
scolding Jamie for telling lies. To the old ladys surprise, Jamie gives the
reply that her dog indeed doesnt bite, but the real fact is thats not her
dog. As a result, the answer made the lady speechless.

2.

Provided information more than required makes humor.

Supposing there is a conversation like the following.
Soprano :
Contralto :

Did you notice how my voice filled the hall last night?
Yes, dear. In fact, I noticed several people leaving to
make room for it.
(Dong, 1992, p. 12)

This humor occurs when one of the speakers supplies information more
than necessary. Soprano is very proud of her own voice, and meanwhile
expects to get other peoples acceptance. Then she asks a Contralto, Did
you notice how my voice full filled the hall? Contralto responds, yes,
dear. Actually, it has already contented Sopranos vanity; however,

11

Contralto also adds more information than required, I saw that the
audiences left to empty space for your voice. This additional
complement implies the performance of Soprano isnt so brilliant that the
audience couldnt bear and walk away. So the additional comment reveals
to us a great contrast between the Sopranos expectation and the
Contraltos response. Consequently the reader can imagine the
embarrassment and depression of Soprano. Thus the violation of the
quantity maxim makes humorous effect in the conversation.

2.2.2 The Maxim of Quality and Humor

As stated above, utterances demand to obey the maxim of quality. One should
try to be truthful, and does not give information that is false or that is not supported
by evidence. Supposing there is a conversation like the following.
Once, a little boy went into a barbers shop. He asked for a shave. The barber
told him to sit down, soaped his face and then left. The boy waited for 10
minutes and at last he lost his patience. Well, he shouted, what are you
leaving me here for all this time? The barber replied, Im waiting for your
beard to grow. (Li, 2002, p. 32)

In this story, it seems the little boy so eagerly wanted to show himself a grownup so that he could shave face in the Barbers, while the humorous barber didnt
refuse the boy directly, instead, he treated the little boy like other adult customers, got
him seated, plastered the soap, and then the barber left. The little boy was too
impatient to wait so long, yelling for why it took such a long time to serve him. The

12

humor springs up from the barbers answer. He said he was waiting for the boys
beard coming out. As is known, men are supposed to have beard after adolescence.
From the little boy, it will take many years to wear beard. Obviously, the barber told
untruthful words to the kid, and violated the second maxim of cooperative principle.
But for breaking the maxim of quality, the barber intended to tell the little boy that he
was still too young to shave. Accordingly, the humorous effect is produced for the
barbers words disobey the objectivity.

2.2.3 The Maxim of Relation and Humor

The teller tries to be relevant, and says things that are pertinent to the
discussion. The participants purposed achieving the same intention. Once the
contravention of the relation maxim emerges in conversation, the conversation will be
directed towards crossroad or ceasing, moreover it may fetches the humor. Lets
illustrate the following examples.
Chemistry teacher : What is water?
Dirty-looking boy : A colorless liquid that turns black as soon as I put my
hands in it.
(Li, 2002, p. 33)
Chemistry teacher asked a question what water was, and she expected the
students to explain the question from the molecular point of view. However, the
dirty-looking boy gave a plausible reply, A colorless liquid that turns black as soon

13

as I put my hands in it It seemed a reasonable answer in daily life, but it was an

unrelated answer to chemistry course; consequently it brings humor to the class.

2.2.4 The Maxim of Manner and Humor

The maxim of manner is generally governs the way you choose to construct
your conversation contributions. The general idea is that you should speak as clearly
as possible, using language appropriate to your listener and the context. It also
prevents you from holding a filibuster and requires that you at least try to organize
what you say before you begin speaking. Supposing there is a conversation like the
following.
A very shy guy goes into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting at the bar.
After an hour of gathering up his courage, he finally goes over to her and asks
tentatively, Um, would you mind if I chatted with you for a while? To
surprise she responds by yelling, at the top of her lungs, No, I wont sleep with
you tonight! Everyone in the bar is now starting at them. Naturally, the guy is
hopelessly and completely embarrassed and he slinks back to his table. After a
few minutes, the woman walks over to him and apologizes. She smiles at him
and says, Im sorry if I embarrassed you. You see, Im a graduate student in
psychology and Im studying how people respond to embarrassing situations.
To amaze he responds, at the top of his lung, What do you mean $200?
(Yang, 2003, p. 11)
From the above example, it is apparently both the boy and the girl are persisting
in violating the maxim of manner. Based on the context, we dont know what really
happened between them. At first, the girl makes embarrassment to the boy. Then the
boy gives a return as well. Not only does he make himself out of embarrassment, but

14

also plays trick on the girl. The utterance is filled with illegible and unorganized
sentences, however, readers can tell the humor easily.

15

DATA EXAMPLES

No.

1.

2.

Data
Interviewer: Hello. Tonight on 'Face the Press' we're going to examine two
different views of contemporary things. On my left is the
Minister for Home Affairs who is wearing a striking organza
dress in pink tulle, with matching pearls and a diamante collar
necklace. The shoes are in brushed pigskin with gold clasps, by
Maxwell of Bond Street. The hair is by Roger, and the whole
ensemble is crowned by a spectacular display of Christmas
orchids. And on my right - putting the case against the
Government - is a small patch of brown liquid... which could
be creosote or some extract used in industrial varnishing. Good
evening.
Host:
Good evening. Tonight 'Spectrum' looks at one of the major
problems in the world today - the whole vexed question of what
is going on. Is there still time to confront it, let alone solve it, or
is it too late? What are the figures, what are the facts, what do
people mean when they talk about things? Alexander Hardacre
of the Economic Affairs Bureau.
Hardacre: In this graph, this column represents 23% of the population. This
column represents 28% of the population, and this column
represents 43% of the population.
Host:
Telling figures indeed, but what do they mean to you, what do
they mean to me, what do they mean to the average man in the
street? With me now is Professor Tiddles of Leeds University.
Host:
Professor, you've spent many years researching into things, what
do you think?
Professor: I think it's too early to tell.
Host:
'Too early to tell' ... too early to say... it means the same thing.
The word 'say' is the same as the word 'tell'. They're not spelt the
same, but they mean the same. It's an identical situation, we have
with 'ship' and 'boat' (holds up signs saying 'ship' and 'boat') but
not the same as we have with 'bow' and 'bough' (holds up signs),
they're spelt differently, mean different things but sound the
same. (he holds up signs saying 'so there') But the real question
remains. What is the solution, if any, to this problem? What can
we do? What am I saying? Why am I sitting in this chair? Why
am I on this programme? And what am I going to say next? Here
to answer this is a professional cricketer.
Cricketer: I can say nothing at this point.
Host:
Well, you were wrong. Professor?
Professor: Hello.

Violated
Maxim(s)

Maxim of
Relevance

Maxim of
Quantity

16

Host:

3.

4.

Hello. So, where do we stand? Where do we stand? Where do we

sit? Where do we come? Where do we go? What do we do?
What do we say? What do we eat? What do we drink? What do
we think? What do we do?
First Man:
Er, excuse me, I want to get married.
Registrar:
I'm afraid I'm already married, sir.
First Man:
Er, no, no. I just want to get married.
Registrar:
I could get a divorce, I suppose, but it'll be a bit of a wrench.
First Man:
Er, no, no. That wouldn't be necessary because...
Registrar:
You see, would you come to my place or should I have to
come to yours, because I've just got a big mortgage.
First Man:
No, no, I want to get married here.
Registrar:
Oh dear. I had my heart set on a church wedding.
First Man:
Look, I just want you to marry me... to...
Registrar:
I want to marry you too sir, but it's not as simple as that.
You sure you want to get married?
First Man:
Yes. I want to get married very quickly.
Registrar:
Suits me, sir. Suits me.
First Man:
I don't want to marry you!
Registrar:
There is such a thing as breach of promise, sir.
First Man:
Look, I just want you to act as registrar and marry me.
Registrar:
I will marry you sir, but please make up your mind. Please
don't trifle with my affections.
First Man:
I'm sorry, but...
Registrar:
That's all right, sir. I forgive you. Lovers' tiff. But you're not
the first person to ask me today. I've turned down several
people already.
First Man:
Look, I'm already engaged.
Registrar:
Yes, and I'm already married. Still we'll get round it.
Second Man:
Good morning. I want to get married.
Registrar:
I'm afraid I'm already marrying this gentleman, sir.
Second Man:
Well, can I get married after him?
Registrar:
Well, divorce isn't as quick as that, sir. Still, if you're keen.
Third Man:
I want to get married, please.
Registrar:
Heavens, it's my lucky day, isn't it? All right, but you'll have
to wait until I've married these two, sir.
Third Man:
What, those two getting married... Nigel What are you doing
marrying him?
Registrar:
He's marrying me first, sir.
Third Man:
He's engaged to me.
Fourth Man:
Come on, Henry.
Registrar:
Blimey, the wife.
Second Man:
Will you marry me?
Fourth Man:
I'm already married.
Inspector Tiger:
This house is surrounded. I'm afraid I must not ask
anyone to leave the room. No, I must ask nobody ... no,
I must ask everybody to... I must not ask anyone to
leave the room. No one must be asked by me to leave
the room. No, no one must ask the room to leave. I ... I
... ask the room shall by someone be left. Not. Ask

Maxim of
Relevance

Maxim of
manner

17

nobody the room somebody leave shall I. Shall I leave

the room? Everyone must leave the room... as it is...
with them in it. Phew. Understand?
Colonel Pickering: You don't want anybody to leave the room.
Inspector Tiger:

Now, alduce me to introlow myslef. I'm sorry. Alself me

to myduce introlow myslef. Introme -to-lose mlow
alself. Alme to you introself mylowduce. Excuse me a
moment. (bangs himself on the side of the head) Allow
me to introduce myself. I'm afraid I must ask that no
one leave the room. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm
Inspector Tiger.

All:

Tiger?

Inspector Tiger:

Where? Where? What? Ah. Me Tiger. You Jane. Grrr.

Beg your pardon, allow me to introduce myself I'm
afraid I must ask that no one leave the room.

Lady Velloper:

Why not?

Inspector Tiger:

Elementary. Since the body was found in this room, and

no one has left it. Therefore ... the murderer must be
somebody in this room.

Colonel Pickering:

What body?

Inspector Tiger:

5.

6.

Somebody. In this room. Must the murderer be. The

murderer of the body is somebody in this room, which
nobody must leave... leave the body in the room not to
be left by anybody. Nobody leaves anybody or the body
with somebody. Everybody who is anybody shall leave
the body in the room body. Take the tablets Tiger.
Anybody (as he searches for the tablets) with a body but
not the body is nobody. Nobody leaves the body in the
... (he takes the tablet) Albody me introbody
albodyduce.
Interviewer:
It's taken five years to prepare and it's bound to have an
enormous impact on the future of industrial relations in
this country. In the studio tonight Lord Porlman,
Chairman of the Committee, Sir Charles Avery,
Employers' Reorganization Council, and Ray
Millichope, leader of the Allied Technicians' Union.
And they're going to make a human pyramid.
M: Is this the right room for an argument?
O:I've told you once.
M: No you haven't!
O: Yes I have.
M: When?

Maxim of
Relevance

Maxim of
Quantity

18

O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You did not!
O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
M: Ah! Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.
O: Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing quite clear: I most definitely told you!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M:Oh, this is futile!!
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
M: I came here for a good argument!

19

O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a
proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! It isn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!
O: Thank you, that's it.
M: What?
O: That's it. Good morning.
M: But I was just getting interested!
O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes just now!!
O: I'm afraid it was.
M: No it wasn't.....
O: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
M: WHAT??
O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five
minutes.
M: But that was never five minutes just now! Oh Come on! Oh this is... This
is ridiculous!
O: I told you... I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!
M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.) There you are.
O: Thank you.
M: Well...
O: Well WHAT?
M: That was never five minutes just now.
O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Well I just paid!
O: No you didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!

20

M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I don't want to argue about it!
O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!
M:Ah hah! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah
HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!
O: No you haven't!
M: Yes I have! If you're arguing, I must have paid.
O: Not necessarily. I *could* be arguing in my spare time.
M: I've had enough of this!
O: No you haven't.
M: Oh shut up!

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alwasilah, A. C. (2002). Pokoknya kualitatif: dasar-dasar merancang dan

melakukan penelitian kualitatif. Pustaka Jaya.
Attardo, S. (1993). Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: The case of
jokes. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(6), 537558.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor. Walter de Gruyter.
Chapman, G., Idle, E., Gilliam, T., Jones, T., Cleese, J., & Palin, M. (1989). The
Complete Monty Pythons Flying Circus; All the Words Volume One. New
York: Pantheon.
Dong, L. (1992). The World of English Humor. Foreign Languanges Teaching and
Research Press.
Grice, P. (1991). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
Li, L. (2002). A Pragmatic Principle and English Humor. Journal of Tianjin Foreign
Studies University,2, 3236.
Raskin, V. (2011). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Springer Netherlands.
Sevilla, C. G., Ochave, J. A., Punsalan, T., Regala, B. P., & Uriarte, G. G. (2007).
Research Methods. Quezon City: Rex Bookstore, Inc.
Wu, Y.-W., & Chen, Y. (2010). Humor Strategies in the American Sitcom
Friends: An Empirical Study with Reference to Grices Cooperative
Principle. : , 5471.
Yang, D. (2003). Grice:The Inferences of Conversational Implications. Foreign
Language and Teaching, 1, 1115.